Subject:
|
Re: Trademarks & Copyrights (Swimming pools & movie stars)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 30 Jan 2002 15:19:02 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1210 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, Scott Arthur writes:
> > This whole thread is completely psychotic. "Bricksmith" and "bricksmiths"
> > are actual words being used in the vernacular -- I am not sure anyone can
> > claim exclusive use of words that are used commonly by others.
>
> If GoB can show they were the fisrt users (I'm not saying they do or are),
> does the word not belong to them?
I have no vested interest in GoB one way or the other, but here are a few
references to consider:
http://iiu.edu.my/deed/hadith/muslim/030_smt.html
(Book 30, number 5733)
http://www.aecinfo.com/pdc/file/00/04/14/20022A.htm
http://www.geodata.soton.ac.uk/newforest/public/resources/eastb.html
"This cottage, known in the twentieth century as "Bricksmith's Cottage" was,
in the early nineteenth century, the "Subscription School" run according to
"Dr Bell's Plan " (sketch by author)'
I would say from these examples that the term has been in use for some time.
Regardless, I doesn't seem necessary that the GoB (which, by the way, is an
original phrase even if "bricksmith" is an extant term) must have coined the
word to make proprietary use of it in context.
Of course, we might also consider:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/smithbr02.shtml
How does he change the dynamic of this discussion? 8^)
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
61 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
